Abusaid v. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 6341, 405 F.3d 1298, 2005 WL 858296 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A Florida county sheriff is not an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court when the sheriff is acting in the specific capacity of enforcing a local county ordinance.
Facts:
- In November 1999, Elias Abusaid, Jr. opened a private nightclub in Hillsborough County, Florida.
- On November 16, 1999, Hillsborough County adopted a 'Dance Hall Ordinance' regulating clubs that featured music and dancing but were not licensed to serve alcohol.
- Beginning in June 2000, the Hillsborough County Sheriff began enforcing the Dance Hall Ordinance against Abusaid.
- The Sheriff arrested Abusaid four times in June 2000, charging him with violations of the ordinance.
- On June 9, 2000, the County Fire Marshal issued a cease and desist order, summarily closing Abusaid’s business.
- On June 19, 2000, Sheriff's deputies drove onto Abusaid's property, threatened his employees and patrons with arrest, and blocked patrons from entering.
- Abusaid alleges the County also threatened his landlord with legal action, which resulted in the landlord filing to evict him.
Procedural Posture:
- Elias Abusaid, Jr. filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Hillsborough County and the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
- The County and the Sheriff filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint.
- The district court granted the motions, dismissing all of Abusaid's federal claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
- The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing the complaint in its entirety.
- Abusaid, as the appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Florida county sheriff, when acting to enforce a county ordinance, function as an arm of the state and thereby receive Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court?
Opinions:
Majority - Marcus, Circuit Judge
No. A Florida county sheriff, when acting to enforce a county ordinance, is not an arm of the state and is therefore not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court must assess whether an entity is an arm of the state by looking at the particular function it was performing when the alleged liability arose. Applying a four-factor test, the court determined that a Florida sheriff acts as a county, not state, official in this capacity. First, Florida state law, including its constitution, overwhelmingly defines sheriffs as 'county officers.' Second, while the state retains some extraordinary powers, counties exercise substantial control over sheriffs, including the power to abolish the office entirely. Third, sheriffs’ budgets are funded by the county, not the state. Fourth, the state treasury is not responsible for paying judgments entered against a sheriff. Because all four factors weigh against arm-of-the-state status for this specific function, the sheriff is not immune from suit.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the function-by-function approach to determining Eleventh Amendment immunity for officials like sheriffs, emphasizing that the analysis is highly dependent on state law. It distinguishes the legal structure of Florida sheriffs from those in Alabama (McMillian) and Georgia (Manders), preventing a uniform rule and requiring a tailored analysis for each state. The case provides a clear precedent that in Florida, sheriffs performing duties delegated by and for the county, such as enforcing local ordinances, are considered county actors. This clarifies their susceptibility to § 1983 lawsuits in federal court for actions taken in that capacity, ensuring a path for accountability for alleged constitutional violations.
